What can I do to make it look closest to the image I see in photoshop? When I print it out it looks... way worse.
It's this image if yer wondering:
It's this image if yer wondering:
Printing .gif's and .jpg's
- Thread starter Donnellizer
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Better Printer? Better Paper? Maybe your DPI or whatever it is is really low...don't know much about printers.
the problem is the dpi (dots per inch)
your monitor is 72dpi but your printer probably runs at 600dpi so what looks good on the screen may not look good when printed.
Now you can't just take a 72dpi pic and change the dpi to 600 and get it to print right (well your pics may look ok since they aren't photos) you should really rebuild them at 600dpi (although honestly from most home laser and inkjet printers if it's only 300dpi it will probably print fine)
.jpg and .gif files are usualy prepared for the internet so they are more then likely at 72dpi (I'm a graphic designer in a print shop and I'm amazed how many so-called professional graphic designers think you can just snag a pic off a web page and expect it to print ... BTW I run film on my image setter at 1800dpi, which is about the minimum for offset printing)
your monitor is 72dpi but your printer probably runs at 600dpi so what looks good on the screen may not look good when printed.
Now you can't just take a 72dpi pic and change the dpi to 600 and get it to print right (well your pics may look ok since they aren't photos) you should really rebuild them at 600dpi (although honestly from most home laser and inkjet printers if it's only 300dpi it will probably print fine)
.jpg and .gif files are usualy prepared for the internet so they are more then likely at 72dpi (I'm a graphic designer in a print shop and I'm amazed how many so-called professional graphic designers think you can just snag a pic off a web page and expect it to print ... BTW I run film on my image setter at 1800dpi, which is about the minimum for offset printing)
The problem occurs when the image being printed is at 72 dpi. You can print that at 3 billion dpi or whatever, but it will still be 72 dpi when you look at it. You don't notice the 'jaggies' so much on your screen because dots blur together. On paper printed from a printer which can actually print at several thousand dpi, those jaggies become all too real.
Your best bet would be to try and upsample the image using bicubic interpolation or something like that, then print it out. It will be less jaggy, but you won't gain any detail.
Your best bet would be to try and upsample the image using bicubic interpolation or something like that, then print it out. It will be less jaggy, but you won't gain any detail.
yes, photoshop
OK, I would if I had any fookin' idea how to do that!
I'm not really an expert at these things, I've only being using photoshop for about a month or so and I just learn as I go. Never really read a tutorial.
yes, Lifesbane, the higher the dpi the smoother and clearer the picture will be. However computer monitors display at 72dpi (or 96dpi) so anything higher then that is just wasting memory, that's why graphics on the web are all 72dpi (actualy its 72 because Macs are at 72dpi ... PCs are actualy at 96dpi).
Another problem with .jpg files is that they use a compression method that basically throws out data it thinks is unimportant, thus it degrades the quality of the image, so if you make stuff you want to print and insist on saving it as .jpg, set the quality on at least 8 (or better yet save it as a .tif or .eps file).
.gif files are usualy in index color which may do funky things when converting to CMYK color (which is what a color printer will use), likewise .jpg files are in RGB color (like your monitor) and they too may change color a bit when converting to CMYK, which is why its a good idea to change your color mode to CMYK and then crank up the saturation a little bit before printing a color print.
Another problem with .jpg files is that they use a compression method that basically throws out data it thinks is unimportant, thus it degrades the quality of the image, so if you make stuff you want to print and insist on saving it as .jpg, set the quality on at least 8 (or better yet save it as a .tif or .eps file).
.gif files are usualy in index color which may do funky things when converting to CMYK color (which is what a color printer will use), likewise .jpg files are in RGB color (like your monitor) and they too may change color a bit when converting to CMYK, which is why its a good idea to change your color mode to CMYK and then crank up the saturation a little bit before printing a color print.
I tend to save my stuff at 93 dpi. Why? Becuase my monitor, running at 1024 by 768, displays images at 93 dots to the real inch. That way, everything I scan shows up actual-size.
Whatever.
Whatever.
Yes, that will work on the screen (actualy it's 96) but if you want to print it on paper it won't have that nice of quality.
You need an absolute minimum of 150dpi for a black and white laser ... I recommend at least 300dpi (the best thing to do is find out what dpi your printer prints at and make it that dpi)
I scan and print at 300 dpi. Anything I intend to work on digitally, and then reproduce on paper is treated at those resolutions or high.
Things are meant for digital only applications stay at 93 dpi.
EDIT: An I say <b>93</b> because given the physical dimensions of my monitor, it really does display 93 dots to the inch at 1024x768. Yes, I really did take out a ruler and measure this value.
Things are meant for digital only applications stay at 93 dpi.
EDIT: An I say <b>93</b> because given the physical dimensions of my monitor, it really does display 93 dots to the inch at 1024x768. Yes, I really did take out a ruler and measure this value.